Can anyone offer proof that K&N is inferior?

[gulledge]

I have seen alot of negative posts here on BITOG toward the filtering ability of K&N compared to paper. I recently started a post under General Oil Topics in which I asked for the one single item between oil, oil filter, and air filter that is the most important toward wear in an engine. The airfilter was chosen by the vast majority of people. With this being said, can anyone show proof with lab reports or other data that could prove K&N filters show higher wear numbers. For example higher Si levels with a K&N compared to paper.
For the record, I have done two samples on my 2001 Civic and there was no difference in numbers between a Denso paper filter and a replacement K&N. However, I clean and reoil my K&N every 15K.

 

[Quickbeam]

Depends on the envirnoment you drive it I think. There are several test reports online and iirc all (except K&N's of course) show the things to let more stuff through. I don't think you're supposed to clean them that often either but I'm sure others will chime in. I took mine off a long time ago. Don't trust it...along with lots of other things

 

[acewiza]

To paraphrase Quickbeam's response:

"No, I can't show any proof."

 

[PRND3L]

I might be able to offer some proof with my next UOA. Had a K&N on most of my last OCI which showed relatively high silicon in UOA:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...true#Post256151

Changed to AEM Dryflow and hope the next UOA will show lower silicon. Butt dyno told me instantly upon the filter change that the K&N flowed more air. Stay tuned.

 

[uconn1150]

My UOAs on both cars with K&Ns show up great.

 

[JohnnyO]

Quote:

---

My UOAs on both cars with K&Ns show up great.

---

Same on my old truck that I had a K&N in. Silicon on the UOA's was fine. Still, it didn't help mpg or power and I had to clean the MAF once in a while to be safe, so I wouldn't bother buying another.

 

[cfromc]

This is not proof one way or the other but just about every vehicle I've owned in the past 10+ years had a K&N installed and I never had an engine failure during that time or dirty TBs or MAF sensors. All 5 of my current vehicles have one now. One thing though, the K&N's "wear" a little every time they are washed and at 15K they usually don't need to be cleaned unless you live in dusty conditions. I was doing once a year cleaning and stopped because the filters weren't that dirty. Now I just clean them when they need it which is not very often.

 

[BGK]

The last time I checked K & N's website they said 30k miles was the minimum mileage needed between servicing their air filters.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

I agree, k and n filters will let more air in thus more power. the other hand it lets more dirt in. this has been proven by all the used Oil Analysis Reports. this shows that you have higher wear numbers. this doesn't mean that and engine will die to higher wear numbers. It just shows you have a higher wear than one that doesn't have a k and n filter on it.

 

[acewiza]

I'll bet a dime to a dollar all those UOAs with K&Ns showing more silicon came from people who cleaned them too much or incorrectly, reducing their effectiveness and in some cases probably even damaging them. Of course they would never admit it, and there is no way to prove it. Just a hunch that I'd bet money on if there was any way to prove it for certain, one way or the other.

 

[mshu7]

How about this? It shows that the K&N (& AEM) cotton gauze filter allowed in more dirt.

http://bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest3.htm

 

[PRND3L]

Quote:

---

I'll bet a dime to a dollar all those UOAs with K&Ns showing more silicon came from people who cleaned them too much or incorrectly, reducing their effectiveness and in some cases probably even damaging them.

---

Well, in my case the K&N filter was new. I had not cleaned it at all and it had been in service for about 8.5k miles. And yes, I realize that they filter better after they'be been in service than when new. With that said, I can't yet attribute the high silicon in my UOA to the K&N filter. If I can rule out the filter as the cause of the high silicon in my UOA, I will not hesitate to reinstall it.

 

[thunderchild]

I know mine was new when I had one. After 2 OCI's (10K), I had a fine layer of dust in the CAI tube I was using. Off it came and back on went my stock box with a Napa Gold filter. No problems since. Except, I miss that sound...

 

[cfromc]

I love mine on my GTP with the supercharger and a gutted airbox, mega blower whine. Anyway, I believe that they do let more dirt in but they also give slightly better HP and MPG, depending on the application. I am considering removing the one from my Suburban because I didn't notice any performance increase and only a very, very slight MPG increase which might not even related to the K&N. I also don't consider the Suburban a performance vehicle so I am less willing to give up some wear protection. The Suburban has a big "high-capacity" air box and probably flows much more air in the stock set-up than is needed by the engine, hence no performance gain noticed. My GTP however has been slightly modified and requires a little more airflow than stock and the gutted airbox and K&N made a noticable difference. My priorities are different on that vehicle so I will be leaving the K&N in place. There are two things to consider: 1)the design of the stock system, some are restrictive and others aren't, if the airbox and filter are not restrictive it is unlikely that there will be much of any performance gain by going to a CAI/FWI or just a drop-in K&N. and 2) what are your priorities, if you want the absolute best filtration, then a K&N will not fit the bill. If you want the most airflow, then K&N is likely your choice.

 

[Quickbeam]

Quote:

---

To paraphrase Quickbeam's response:

"No, I can't show any proof."

---

He didn't define "proof" so I don't know what he wants. As I said there are plenty of online tests showing they let more stuff in. I don't see how they can flow better and not do so. They certainly flow better. I did a manometer pressure drop test on mine to prove it, at least to myself. As for filtering, oil included, I got dust behind it when operating in a dusty environment. And just hold it up to the light and look through it. You're welcome to use one though. It's not my vehicle.

 

[Quickbeam]

Forgot something. I also saw turbo compressor wheel erosion (under magnification) when using one that wasn't there prior to installing it. Proof enough for me.

 

[Tornado Red]

Quote:

---

I agree, k and n filters will let more air in thus more power...

---

Not in every application.

In the October 2006 issue of DieselPower, there is an article called "Air Filter Shootout: Part 2". Seven different after-market CAI products were compared with the stock Mopar filter (paper with foam pre-filter). The K&N product which was tested was the K&N9.

With the stock filter, the Cummins engine produced 309 hp and 570 lb-ft of torque. With the after-market intakes, the results ranged between 308.7 and 310.4 hp, and between 566.1 and 573 lb-ft of torque.

So on a stock Cummins engine, the stock intake produced just as much power as the seven after-market intakes.

It is possible that the Duramax and Powerstroke intakes are not as well-designed as the Cummins and TDI intakes. But generally speaking, without modifications like bigger injectors, performance calibration (chip), and a bigger turbo, there is nothing to gain from a K&N filter or any other after-market intake system.

Unless a turbo-charged diesel engine is getting a lot more fuel than stock, it won't need a CAI.

 

[md_lucky_13]

If there was a ton of "proof" about this, wouldn't there be a class action suit?

They should post the filter efficency on their website like many of the other manufactures.. That would settle it for me.

 

[acewiza]

Tornado, which Cummins are you talking about? Because the 1st Gen intakes suck (no pun intended!

). There's a guy by the handle of DJ out in San Fran in an active thread over at DTR right now that says he actually tested his stock airbox with a manometer and saw a 50% flow resistance decrease (9" water column vs. 6") through a stock 1st Gen airbox after he drilled it. That's alot. My mods reflect that in personal experience. It just amazes me how people can generalize everything from one thing to the next. Apples to apples oranges to oranges, please.

 

[acewiza]

Sorry, you did preface your comments by "not in every application."